Author
Topic: What do you consider a "destination" wedding? (Read 14332 times)

How far away from you does a location have to be before you'd consider it a destination wedding? Is it the actual location, rather than distance? If it's a long distance from the bride/groom, but relatively close to you, is it still a destination wedding in your mind? What factors would you use to decide if you wanted to attend a destination wedding?

When DH and I were married, the location was the college we'd both attended. It was about a 14 hour drive for my family, and about an hour and a half drive for his family. There was a fair amount of grumbling from his family regarding "all the driving" we were making them do, and a few people referred to it as a destination wedding. I joked that it was only fair to make everyone travel, since one side would have to no matter what!

I guess I consider it a destination wedding if the location is vacation-like.

If someone was no longer living at home with their family but chose to have the wedding in their hometown I wouldn't really call that a destination wedding. Having it at Disneyworld? Yeah, that I might call a destination wedding.

Due to the amount of traveling we'd do when I was a kid for weddings due to the fact our family was spread up and down the East coast, I'd think it was a bit precious to whine about a drive of 1-3 hours for a wedding and call it a destination wedding because they had to travel. Mainly cause for us 3 hours was typical for weddings as we were in MD and it was at least a 3 hour drive to either side of the family.

Logged

Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars. You have a right to be here. Be cheerful, strive to be happy. -Desiderata

I only consider it a destination wedding when neither member of the couple has lived there in the past for a significant period of time or currently lives there. A friend of mine is planning on getting married in a Northern state where she is from and her family lives, while the groom lives in the South. Groom's brother is calling it a destination wedding and says he won't go. I don't really think you can win when the couple grew up 1500 miles apart.

I guess I'd consider a destination wedding one where both the HC and their guests (or majority of them) have to travel a fair distance. Or perhaps somewhere like Disney World, or maybe on a cruise or other holiday place.

I was originally going to say one that involved both the HC and their guests all needing a passport, but that really depends on where (general) you lives. For people in Europe, they might require a passport, but it could only involve a 30 minute minute drive across the border, whereas for me the shortest international route involves a minimum 3 1/2 flight, so that's not really a good barometer...

If the HC gets married in their current city but everyone else has to travel many hours to get there, I suppose that wouldn't technically be a destination wedding, even if it is a pain in the neck for everyone else to need to travel.

This is just my personal opinion, and I am admittedly old fashioned. In my family weddings are a big event for relatives. I feel that if you want your friends and relatives to attend you should make it as convenient as possible. If one family lives a great distance from the other, then one side is going to be inconvenienced and that is unavoidable. In my family a destination wedding would not go over well.

If you plan a destination wedding where attendance involves airline travel, multiple nights in a hotel, restaurant meals, and time off from work, in other words, significant costs to the attendees, then I think you should understand that many people won't be able to attend, or will choose not to.

I've known people who do this well by limiting the invitations to people who are very close. I've also known people who diplomatically talk to their friends and relatives to see how they feel about attending the destination wedding that they are thinking of.

Expecting 150 people to travel to the Caribbean to attend your wedding might be a bit much, but having your closest friends and relatives do this might seem to them like a fun time. I haven't known anyone who was unreasonable in having a destination wedding. Most trimmed their guest list. I did know one woman who had her third wedding in Las Vegas (from Michigan) and was upset because few of her friends and relatives went. However this woman was a knock down drag out alcoholic who went through husbands pretty quickly, so that may be why people didn't feel like flying across the country to celebrate her latest impulse.

I consider it destination when everyone (couple, all family members and guests) has to travel by plane or drive more than 3 hours one way requiring overnight stays. If one side of the family lives in the area then I don't think it's a destination.

#1 clue that it is a destination wedding would be that nobody lives there in either family, nor does the happy couple, or the place is a popular vacation destination - whether known for weddings, cruises, movie characters, gambling, or the production of some popular comestible (cheese, wine, peaches, oranges, apples, etc.).

So - Las Vegas, Disney (followed by any one of the locations), a cruise ship - no matter whether headed to the Bahamas or whale watching, a vineyard for a wine tasting afterward, or any other event like that would be a destination wedding (possibly even if some members of the extended family or friends lived or worked there - as long as the happy couple & their parents don't live there).

#2 sign it's a destination wedding would be that there is at least overnight stay in a hotel because it is too far to drive - airplane travel would also indicate that it is most likely a destination wedding. If family members live there and have enough space in their homes for at least MOST of the bridal party, etc. to stay there...well, it can still be a destination wedding for the other side of the family and anyone who is having to take three days of vacation to attend might be excused for mentioning that it is a "destination wedding" as far as their budget is concerned.

Our decision came down to: If the location is one that isn't the B&G's current or former home, especially if it's in a vacation-y destination.

I agree; although I would also consider it a destination wedding if the only people living in the area were the bride and groom and all the family and guests had to travel in.

I absolutely would not consider that a destination wedding. It's completely normal for a couple to marry in the community in which they live. In fact, it would be just a little weird for them to travel. That used to be one of the justifications for having a destination wedding--that so many people would have to travel, and so a vacation destination that's central is actually more considerate to the guests.

But the *destination* has to be unexpected and vacation-y. In other words, the destination is the whole point of the location, not "this is where I live; this is where my family is; this is where my church is."

Our decision came down to: If the location is one that isn't the B&G's current or former home, especially if it's in a vacation-y destination.

I agree; although I would also consider it a destination wedding if the only people living in the area were the bride and groom and all the family and guests had to travel in.

I absolutely would not consider that a destination wedding. It's completely normal for a couple to marry in the community in which they live. In fact, it would be just a little weird for them to travel. That used to be one of the justifications for having a destination wedding--that so many people would have to travel, and so a vacation destination that's central is actually more considerate to the guests.

But the *destination* has to be unexpected and vacation-y. In other words, the destination is the whole point of the location, not "this is where I live; this is where my family is; this is where my church is."

I agree; there's nothing at all non-traditional about the HC wanting to marry in their current town.

However, if all of the guests are pretty far-flung and the HC don't have strong feelings about where they marry - then I wouldn't call a place like Las Vegas necessarily a "destination" wedding. Usually fairly cheap flights are available there from many cities in NA and guests wouldn't have to spend more than one or two nights - as opposed to an all-inclusive Caribbean resort for example. If most of her family is in Seattle and his is in Milwaukee, everyone would have to travel no matter what and Vegas might be a good "compromise".

My definition of a "destination" wedding is one where the HC could choose a location much more convenient for most of their guests, but instead choose a more far-flung location more "special" to them - naturally this would not mean their new home-town.

Our decision came down to: If the location is one that isn't the B&G's current or former home, especially if it's in a vacation-y destination.

I agree; although I would also consider it a destination wedding if the only people living in the area were the bride and groom and all the family and guests had to travel in.

DH and I were married in the town we are currently living in, which also happens to be a beach town. Our [11] guests (immediate family only) had to travel 200-1200 miles to get here. We didn't consider it a "destination" wedding though. To have the wedding in the area I grew up still would have involved travel (of 500-1200 miles) for half of our guests, to an area with no convenient airports, hotels, and/or wedding venues. To have the wedding in the area my husband grew up would have involved cross country travel for absolutely everyone. We were paying for the wedding ourselves, and it made the most sense to have it where we were/are located.